The right of redemption is available to the mortgagor until the sale is complete by registration of sale, and the violation of statutory rules may entitle the borrower to redeem the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in RA.(SA).No.17 of 2022, and quash the same and consequently set aside the sale held on 04.09.2020.)

Common Order:

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Petitions:

1. The writ petitioners have filed these two writ petitions challenging the common order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in R.A.(SA).No.17 of 2022 and R.A.(SA).No.18 of 2022, respectively.

  B. The brief facts of the case :

2. The first petitioner is a partnership firm and the second and third petitioners are its partners. They availed packing and cash credit loan facility from the first respondent in the year 2017 and the said loan facilities were also renewed by a sanction letter dated 29.03.2019 to the tune of Rs.4 crores and the fourth respondent stood as a guarantor. Four properties were mortgaged as collateral security for availing of the said facilities. The petitioners failed to repay the amount as per schedule and as such the loan accounts became irregular and it was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 25.11.2018.

  2.1 Thereafter, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short, the Act), was issued on 10.02.2020 and symbolic possession was taken under Section 13(4) of the Act on 21.04.2020. While so, a sale notice was issued for sale of mortgage properties. On 31.07.2020, the date of auction sale was fixed on 04.09.2020.

  2.2 The writ petitioners aggrieved by the said measures filed S.A.No.263 of 2020 to set aside the sale notice dated 31.07.2020. Since there was no Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P.No.11948 of 2020 and by an order dated 01.09.2020, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following order:-

  “3. From the facts submitted it appears that the sale is scheduled to take place on 04.09.2020. Therefore, some interim order will have to be passed in favour of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to get further orders before the Tribunal in the pending application or by way of filing a fresh application as the petitioner may choose.

  4. In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to proceed with the auction but not to confirm the sale till 08.09.2020. The petitioner can move the Tribunal seeking appropriate order in the pending application or by filing a fresh one which can be taken up for hearing on 08.09.2020. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

  2.3 Thereafter, the petitioners moved the S.A.No.263 of 2020 before the Tribunal and by an order dated 07.09.2020, the Tribunal ordered that the Bank shall not confirm the sale on condition that the petitioners make a deposit of a sum of Rs.2 crore. It is relevant to extract the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which reads as follows:-

  “SA.263/2020, 07.09.2029

  Ld. Counsel Mr.G.Mathanascclan is appearing for Applicants.

  Ld. Counsel Mr.V.Sairam is appearing for Respondent Bank.

  Emergent Petition in I.A.No.1025/2020: Petition allowed.

  Stay Petition in 1A No. 1026/2020:

  Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the property was sold to very substantial lower amount and the Hon''ble High Court has granted an interim order not to confirm the sale till 08.09.2020. The Applicant is also willing to deposit a substantial amount to the loan accou